The argument between John Edwards, Barack Obama, and now Paul Krugman over the proper role of 527s in Democratic politics is tricky. As John Edwards and Barack Obama point out, "soft-money" in politics opens doors to corruption and makes it much more difficult to hold anyone accountable for dirty campaigning and bad policy. As John Edwards points out, he doesn't actually control 527s that are currently helping his campaign by going after Obama on ostensibly progressive issues. And in fact, it would be illegal for him to "coordinate" with them. And of course, as Barack Obama points out, there's a certain irony when an opponent of soft money (Edwards) finds himself in the position of ... depending on using accepting tolerating ignoring [_____] ... the aid of 527s in his effort to defeat a more or less progressive rival, Obama.
Both sides are having trouble articulating their case, in my opinion, and though some people take that as a sign of weakness (either in terms of being wrong or disingenuous), I take it as a sign that they are struggling to work out the details of a better, more progressive way of fighting and winning political battles. What's more, the fact that Edwards and Obama are engaged in this conversation--while Hillary sits on the sidelines--suggests to me that Edwards and Obama are essentially on the same side while Hillary is on the other side of the line that her chief rivals are trying to hash out.
So where should progressive Democrats draw this line?
There are three conventional alternatives, none of which are adequate. Edwards is using the legal approach, at the moment, following the "letter of the law." He defends his actions by arguing that the law requires inaction on his part. He, Edwards, is not allowed to coordinate with the 527s, for better or worse. So he can't and shan't. That opens him up to Obama's observation that it sends a seemingly contradictory message: Edwards is against soft money but not really against it, at least at times, at least not in a meaningful way. He's unwilling to fight it when it benefits him. Or his hands seem tied and he lacks the courage or creativity to McGyver his way out of this bind. Barack Obama, for his part, seems--at least to Krugman--to be using a second, soft-money-is-bad approach. Krugman, in turn, offers the alternative soft-money-for-progressive-causes-i.e.-unions-is-good approach. Whew!!! (Too many words in that one.)
All three are right, in some way, so all three are also at least a bit problematic. The legal approach legitimizes the right wing use of 527s to smear liberals. The other two approaches tend to disarm progressives running a "clean" campaign when up against non-progressives or it leaves progressives open to charges of hypocrisy--which in itself then can be misused effectively by non-progressives who want to use 527s for corrupt purposes.
Ultimately, I think, we need to be thinking and rethinking the political tactics/strategies we use so that our means support, rather than undermine, our political ends. And since our ends are not just about winning elections or legislative battles but also about promoting a sustainably progressive political culture that will solidify our victories ..... the answer is going to require greater clarity about what's problematic--from a progressive stand point--and what's really okay.
For today, here's what I want for Christmas, at least on this issue. I want Edwards to acknowledge that the problem with 527s isn't coordination per se. It's that 527s undermine accountability and clarity regarding who's buying political influence and for what reasons. The AFSCME mailing slamming Obama on mandates, paid for by Hillary but designed to look like it's supporting Edwards is the perfect example of how 527s can be used by Democrats in a very unprogressive way. I would also like for Edwards to actually say that 527s aren't really honest when they say they're doing policy advocacy right before an election when the candidate's position was being developed months earlier. From Obama, I want more clarity. I want him to acknowledge that Edwards is on the right side in the big scheme of things and that there isn't an obvious, easy solution; in other words, Edwards' problem is a function of the system more than it is a problem with Edwards' message. I want Obama to say that Edwards has integrity (if he believes that) but that his issue is how Edwards' way of handling this effects our efforts to reduce the corrupting influence of soft money down the line.